Category: 2016 Elections

Maybe it’s just cynical me. But I’m thinking there’s some politicking going on here:

Amid these difficulties, and after dismissing three attorneys who worked for the tribe under Jandreau, Kevin Wright was puzzled after receiving a phone call from the former U.S. Attorney.

“And he left a message saying that he was very interested in Lower Brule and what’s going on down there…and would like to talk,” Wright recalls.

Wright says he agreed to a meeting on the advice of the tribe’s new attorney, but was surprised by the conversation with Brendan Johnson.

and…

“I don’t represent anyone in this dispute,” Johnson counters. “And, in fact, when I went to Lower Brule, it wasn’t to seek legal representation. It wasn’t to tell anyone what they should do. It was really simply to say that these divisions within the tribe need to be healed.”

Johnson notes he isn’t working for anyone and was invited by Kevin Wright to the Lower Brule Sioux Reservation.

Read it all here.

Isn’t it nice that attorneys offer to get involved in tribal politics and infighting for free?

After an unexpected void was created in South Dakota GOP Senate Leadership by the twin resignations of Assistant Majority Leader Dan Lederman, and Majority Leader Tim Rave a day later, many have been have been wondering who is going to take the reins, and when the decision is going to be made.

Well, wait no more.  The word I’m getting is that the Republican Senators are tentatively planning to caucus in about 2 1/2 weeks on May 9th to choose who will assume those positions.

And, while the list of those who are running is still rumbling quietly, one of those I’ve been able to confirm will be running is President Pro Temp Corey Brown who will be seeking the Senate Majority Leader position.

In my mind, that’s actually the best of all scenarios, allowing an experienced hand to manage caucus affairs while bringing others who might  be in whip positions up to speed to be ready to lead the following year. It sounds as if the decision was made with a bit of reluctance, as Brown noted to me that “it wasn’t an easy decision,” but serving in the majority leader role is “better for the caucus.”

We’ll find out who else might be running, and how the caucus will reconfigure in the coming days. So, keep your bookmarks at SDWC for the latest on what’s happening in caucus elections!

As announced a week ago, Jon Ellis with the Argus Leader had mentioned during the 100 eyes program that Democrats allegedly had a candidate for Congress that “was a good one,” who would be announcing their candidacy at the annual Democrat state dinner.

But by the end of the night, there was nothing. No announcement other that Debbie Wasserman Schultz proclaiming that (without money or candidates), Dems would somehow prevail at this next election.

Well, good luck with that.

The fact of the matter is that they’re quickly moving towards the “sell by” date on legitimate candidacies, and are readying the yellow “priced for fast sale” stickers.

If we look at recent history at this point in the last cycle, Mike Rounds had announced, and had been campaigning for 4-5 months. And Rick Weiland was only days away from announcing (about May 8th, 2013). Having ran before (twice previously) Weiland knew that a competent campaign needed to get in the field and raise money constantly to support a major statewide campaign.

Not that he ran a competent campaign, but at least he pretended. Unlike others.

At this point, Corinna Robinson was months away from announcing (October in the year before the election) but she was crushed by a 33% margin, never had the funds to go on TV, and ended the campaign writing off nearly 12,000 of a 20,000 personal loan.

Not the kind of campaign an aspiring statewide candidate should want to emulate.

With Senate Bill 69 having been passed and signed by the Governor this year to allow additional time for petition challenges and facilitate military voting, the petition portion of the campaign season has been pushed back into December, demanding that legitimate candidates show their hand even sooner than in past election cycles.

With the mystery candidate for the congressional seat (rumored to be Paula Hawks) sitting on his or her hands at the moment, every day that ticks away with them not out fundraising and campaigning only adds to the inevitability that they face a world class shellacking at the hands of Congresswoman Noem, who is arguably at the height of her power.

And let’s not forget United States Senator John Thune whom the Dems couldn’t challenge 6 years ago – he’s 6 years stronger, and has had all that time to raise money. It’s not an exaggeration to state that it’s looking more and more that he may not be challenged once again, representing an utter embarrassment & failure of a basic test of competence for the South Dakota Democratic Party – actually running candidates for office.

With a shortened campaign season, and opponents at the height of their power and popularity, a lack of candidates is not a good sign of health for the South Dakota Democratic Party.  And it looks more and more that Democrats are consigned to yet another dismal electoral cycle, representing their continued failure as a party in South Dakota.

One of my commenters pointed out the following in reference to the rumor about a Democrat Legislator announcing this weekend that they’re going take on Kristi Noem:

Inside word from people in the know in the Democratic Party is that it is Rep. Paula Hawks from District 9 (Sioux Falls, Hartford). She came in second in her last four-person race, beating the 3rd place Republican by 8 votes in a Democratic district. Doesn’t sound like a strong candidate to me but she is very tall.

Anyone have confirmation, so we can get a head start?

In case you caught the flyer in the post below, I wanted to provide a little additional information.  Chad Krier, field director for AFP is putting this on, on his own, to help bridge the gap between the various conservative groups in the area (but it’s not an AFP Event).

I asked Chad what the purpose was, and he noted:

“The idea behind the lunch is to give conservatives an opportunity to meet once a month in an informal setting and share their concerns and meet and network with fellow conservatives and for the leaders of various conservative organizations to publicize their events to fellow conservatives.

There are many conservative groups that are doing wonderful work in their particular policy areas, but this is a great opportunity for the members of the various groups to get together and advertise their events beyond their usual supporters.”

Basically, it’s an opportunity for these conservative groups, which may work for vastly different goals, to sit down and break bread, and to talk about what they’re doing, possibly to share ideas and resources.

Not a bad reason to meet for lunch.

Today, Corinna Robinson filed her final FEC Report closing the chapter on her run for Congress in South Dakota, despite earlier assertions at the end of the last campaign that she was going to be a candidate for the same office in 2016.

Corinna Robinson Termination Report

The report was limited to returning a $1000 donation from an out of state accountant, and Corinna forgiving what remained on the 20K loan she’d made to herself early in the campaign. As noted on the report:

The loan was created in the amount of 20,000.00 in December 2013. There were payments made on this loan. The payments totaled 8,000.00. The payments were made on 7/31/14 for 3,500.00, 8/5/14 for 1,500.00, 10/25/14 for 2,000.00 and 11/10/14 for 1,000.00. There were additional amount added to this loan in the amount of 357.62 in December 2014. This bring the total of the loan to 12,357.62. This loan is being forgiving in the amount of 12,357.62. A letter will be sent to FEC from the candidate stating that she is forgiving this loan in the amount of 12,357.62

This leaves state Democrats back to square one in attempting to find a candidate to challenge Kristi Noem in 2016; at arguably at the height of her popularity and her strongest beginning campaign coffers to date.

And it provides a cautionary tale of what happens when carpetbaggers jump in from out of state and think they’re all that. It usually fails.

From the Rapid City Journal come the foes of education trying to stop an opt-out in it’s tracks:

Weaver’s group, along with the Citizens for Academic Transparency and South Dakota Campaign for Liberty, opposes the opt out, which would allow the district to exceed the lid on property taxes.

and…

The school board approved the opt out on March 24 after a district fiscal officer said there would be no money to give 1,800 district employees a raise next year, even with $6 million in general fund reductions and a 2 percent raise in education funding by the state Legislature.

The district dipped into its reserves to pay for an $85 million general fund budget for this year. About 85 percent of the general fund goes toward salaries and employee benefits.

The additional levy from the opt out is projected to cost property owners an additional $12 per $100,000 of assessed valuation for each $1 million of opt-out revenue, or $72 per year if the school district asks for the full $6 million.

Agricultural property owners’ taxes would jump $30 per year per $100,000 in assessed valuation, with non-agricultural, commercial property owners facing an annual tax increase of $150 per $100,000 of valuation.

Weaver said the district isn’t forthcoming on how education money is spent, and she questions the need to put more of a burden on taxpayers.

and…

Weaver said part of the problem is the state’s acceptance of the common core mandates.

“These requirements are driving up the cost of education, and it’s debatable whether any of it even benefits the children. No one’s asking that question: ‘Is it good for the kids?'” she said.

Read it here.

If anyone can demonstrate how one set of educational standards, common core, is driving up educational costs versus any other set of standards, I’d like to hear the explanation. But standards are a small argument in light of the problem of paying for our kids getting a quality education.

Education has been on the bottom rung of the funding ladder for many, many years in South Dakota. I’d argue some of it has been the fault and tactics of lobbying groups such as SDEA, who spent years attacking Republicans and alienating themselves in the legislative process.   I’d argue that some of it comes from bad attitudes towards the profession (I work 12 months out of the year and those gol durn teachers don’t, etc), and some of it is our culture – we’re pretty darned tight with our tax dollars.

I don’t think suing the state helped much (to determine what educational funding should be) to help the relationship either.

In the past, our students have been able to keep pace, and even excel in test scores despite a disparity in teacher pay and educational funding. But in recent years, the differences are becoming pronounced enough to get legislators to pay attention, as one conservative Republican legislator was commenting the other day:

…even a casual reader of the Argus Leader would be aware that we have funding challenges for education in South Dakota. Competitive salaries to attract and retain qualified educators in the k-12 world, and funds to keep tuition affordable in the technical school and regental system will come with a cost – a big one. The only realistic option on the table is some form of a sales tax for some period of time.

Read that here.

As Representative Schoenbeck notes, a temporary sales tax, such as during summer months, would raise a considerable amount of money, and dedicating it to education would provide the stable source of funding the education lobby has been demanding for years. Would we want it year-round? Or it it never going to happen?

So I pose the question to you. What do you think?